Representative == repressive?

The words look similar, as do the concepts. If you pretend/attempt to represent tonnes of people with one single person, you cannot please everyone, in fact, you’ll displease most (I know, at first glance the law of averages has it that you please half, but people are displeased in different amounts about different things, so less than half), MP’s know that, so thry stop trying to figure out what the people want, and by extent, stop caring about what we want. They only do as they themselves want, because they’re in charge.
Which is why all self-labeled #democracies are #oligarchies: minority rule; a #parliament of 150 Dutch MPs tells a population of a bit more than 17,000,000 what to do, without really representing anyone,other than themselves. The scary thing is, observing hearings they demonstrate to actually believe that they serve the people. Impossible! There are 113,333 1/3 people per MP. Each of those people has different wishes from the next, some genuinely wish to harm,their fellow country men, those are the ones that vote communist/socialist.

And I’m not even talking about the American election fraud that won, Obama the ’08 election. And that country made duch a big fuss about imposing democracy on,Arabia, at the cost of millions of lives (and rising for the foreseeable future  – and bryond?) (link to a Dutch report)


Sometimes, #luxurious #provisions become too #expensive. What a business is to do then, is: excise those provisions, so e.g. no more bubble baths for the office cleaning crew, just to invent a ridiculous example.
Even though the office cleaning crew had gotten to like those bubble baths, they’ve become #unaffordable and thus #untenable.
Or #socialBenefits, which the population of a nation had come to expect, like #unemploymentBenefits, it’s very mean and all, if people can’t get those anymore, but when one pretends to have the skill set required to run a #country (a ridiculous notion: a country is only a region where people are born and die; it’s were they live, eat, sleep, i.e. exist; it’s not a business that has to be run for profit – whose profit? The population’s?), one can’t seriously refuse to make cuts in those provisions, because if one does, the country will go bankrupt.
And when you do, you can’t continue stealing from the people as much as you did. As a matter of fact, the reason that these provisions have become so unaffordable, is that they are government-commanded, and each and all have to pay into it. So really denying people the money they were promised to get out of it, is no more than ordinary intra-temporal theft.
If the government had never have been so arrogant and presumptuous to get in the people’s way, then this nonsense would not have caused the endemic problems it has. If the people would have been allowed to arrange their own affairs, they would have. But through coercion, government had crowded out such arrangements: after all, when civillians already (forcibly) pay into those arrangements, they won’t pay extra for a similar private initiative.
And the responsible persons (socialists) should have been fired from the job a long time ago, and in a business run for profit (not a country run for loss) that would have happened a long time ago.
So what use (title of this blog post) are politicians that refuse to accept reality, and instead to live in their own, private dream world? That refuse to make the required changes? Why should the population of a country continue to accept their existence, when that is so clearly against our own interests?

P.s. voor de Nederlandse lezers onder u, ik dacht bij deze dus aan de #AOW, welke met kunst- en vliegwerk gaande moet worden gehouden, totdat ook die ingrepen niet genoeg blijken; dan wordt er nog meer onrecht aangericht, en mogen/kunnen jongeren, die het moeten opbrengen voor de ouderen (dankzij het belachelijke omslag-principe, ipv een #spaarpensioen) niet 1 cent ontvangen in hun eigen oude dag, want tegen die tijd is al het geld alweer op. Ad infinitum. Daarom: bespaar het volk de ellende, en adviseer jongeren,om hun eigen zaakjes te regelen. Schaf daarom de AOW af en laat Wouter Bos, Wim Kok en nog meer PvdA’ers en andere socialisten de eigen portemonnee trekken, om de ouderen die niet hebben espaard voor hun oude dag (omdat het allemaal zo mooi was geregeld door de overheid!) maar uit eigen zak betalen. Zij zijn tenslotte degenen die ervoor verantwoordelijk zijn, dat miljoenen mensen in de #financiële #problemen gaan komen. Laat ze het dan zelf maar voelen: dat heet #regeringsverantwoordelijkheid nemen.

Why does capitalism work better than socialism?

Socialism, being dictatorial, lets evertyhing (it’s always totalitarian) be decided by one person, unlike capitalism, which lets everything get decided by the market, which consists of millions of “one person”s. So, yes, capitalism is more social.

And anarchism, with its zero rulers, is the most social and democratic of all.

This reflects quite poorly on you

In,a much older post, I have written about anarcho-communism and anarchocapitalism. I have to say, I’m still convinced that anarchocapitalism (ancapism) is the most promising view (esp. compared to statism). So ancapism may be less strictly anarchist, because it allows for voluntary employer (boss)-employee relationships. A heresy to ancoms (anarcho-communists). Which makes ancapism that the only feasible way to organize real life societies.

This year (it’s 24 April 2017, as I write this), marks the centenial of the market debut of Das Kapital (in 1917). Since then communism has been the source of unquantifiably much human suffering, countless civillians killed and the economic damage (and damage to mental & physical health) is unimaginable. Still people turn to communism as their ideology of choice, knowing full well what it does

(I know Marx did not invent socialism, but for convenience sake, let’s take 1917 as the birth date of that ideology as well: communism is an iteration of socialism, which has failed just as spectacularly as communism has.

Communism requires a dictator, as much as communists try to deny that: a centralized state without dictator simply does not work. Of course, a centralized state equally simply does not work for the people, but ignoring them for a moment, one can simply recognize that unnatural structures need brutal enforcing.

On anarchist fora (forums), ancoms are desperate to try and make their ideology look good, and to slur ancaps. They resort to slander, transparent fables, and equally transparent distortions, anything to make their darling ideology look fine. The worst of it is, they know what they’re doing. Any regular person would have taken the stupendous failure to heart and dropped the ideology  but oh no, not communists. They keep kicking the dead donkey until ancaps cave in, or plain miss out on an opportunity to respond.

THAT is what reflects poorly on them: the despair to defend (and promote) an inmpossible (& harmful) system. Because just like all leftists they do not care about the wellbeing of others, only about their own enjoyment. Socialism is the perfect ideology for egotists (aka politicians), and the wrong ideology for civillians.

Bio-entrepreneur and “-ism”s

This post may seem a tad untasteful, but it serves a purpose, so please read on.

Consider what happens when living beings excrete solid waste, the poop ends up in nature (hopefully not too near a stream), and does not stay there permanently, instead it gets broken down into fertilizer by microbes.
Something develops (through evolution) so: what’s useless for one being, gets consumed by something that needs the waste to survive, turning that waste into stuff useful for the excreting beings.
Something similar happens when for instance scrap metal merchants relieve human setlements of their old cutlery, old cars/bikes, discarded buckets etc. They recycle them into metal used for making new buckets/cutlery etc.
So because the waste products can be used for profit by entepreneurs to relieve others from their waste, turning the waste into useful products for the first group. So, it’s a simple simile for natural processes.
Once again, where comunism/socialism are unnatural, capitalism isn’t an “-ism”, it’s what people do when you leave them alone.

The social contract is a one-way construct

The social contract only ever goes in one direction obligations from the civillian to their overlords. By not moving out of the jurisdiction of the overlords, the citizen agrees with all the government does.
That is pertinent nonsense, of course; so long as the same does not apply to #politicians (that VOLUNTARILY choose to enter politics) one could easily argue that a #Hitler did not work only in the best interests of his citizens, or a George W. Bush, who sent 4000-5000 to their deaths, or a Stalin, or a Pol Pot, a Mussolini, the list goes on and on, definitely if one reads up the achievements of (esp. socialist) politicians, in e.g. R.J. Rummel’s “Death by government”.
Those cases are ones whee governments had clearly waived their rights of existence, by turning against the people. And not living up to their ends of the social contract